Talk:French petitions against age of consent laws

Historical Revisionism

I just fixed an edit someone had made of one of Foucault's quotes, wherein they changed "child" to "teen." Foucault stated child. I can only guess at the political motivations behind this. In any case, it appears much of this page has been altered to make the events described seem more compatible with contemporary beliefs and taboos. As a newer Wikipedia user, I am not sure how to remedy this. If someone else could, it would be appreciated.

Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added a 'Political POV' warning tag to the article for the above reason. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have done my best to restore the parts of the page which were edited in this way to what they were formerly, at points cleaning up wording and phrasing as well. It is possible that some bias remains which I have missed, but I have removed the 'Political POV' warning tag now. Epistemologicalbiker (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

First vs second letter signatories

Can we clarify whether any of the famous names who signed the 1977 letter also signed the 1979 letter? At the moment, the page is a little passively misleading: the celebs' endorsement of the moderately teen-permissive language of the first letter can be read as extending to the extremely pro-pedophilia language of the second letter. To avoid such confusion, I'd like a statement that the folks on the long list did not sign the second (or if some did, then say who those ones were). Sorry, I realize a complete list of signatures for the second letter doesn't appear on the source page.

Also, who actually wrote thee letters?

DanB DanD 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are right. There are no evidences that the names are the same ones, except for the name of Christiane Rochefort. Probably there is some overlapping but we can't say for sure. The source in French mentions "plus attendus ou moins connus" after the 3 names, which means (according to Babelfish) "more waited or less known". Paulo Andrade 16:13, 9 August 2006 (GMT)

• Yeah, I'm extremely confused as to how the English and French versions of a single article can differ so wildly.ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

error in the list of names on the petition

It think it might be an error to include the names of Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Roland Barthes, Alain Robbe-Grillet and Philippe Sollers for the petition. They did sign the letter to Le Monde in January 1977, but I can't find any evidence that they signed the petition to the parliament later that year. I think that the error probably comes from the website denistouret.net (http://www.denistouret.net/constit/Cohn-Bendit.html ). The website cites an article from the newspaper Libération which seems to have misread an article that appeared in the magazine L'Express (Jacqueline Remy, “Libération sexuelle: Le devoir d’inventaire,” L’Express, no. 2591, 01/03/2001, page 80-82). The article in L'Express talked about both the January 1977 letter and the petition later that year and somehow it seems that the two got confused. For example, the website quotes Sollers as saying "Il y avait tellement de pétitions. On signait presque automatiquement," but here Sollers was talking about the January letter and NOT the petition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scotteaux (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

source

the article form L'express is disponible there: http://www.lexpress.fr/informations/le-devoir-d-inventaire_641580.html--Domics (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Michel Foucault signature

The article states that Michel Foucault signed the open letter in Le Mond, however the archived version of the letter that is listed as a source does not include his name among the signees. If no one can show me a source that actually lists him as a signee, I will go ahead and remove his name from the sentence. ("An open letter signed by 69 people, including Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes, Philippe Sollers, and Louis Aragon was published in Le Monde in 1977")

~~~

Patlut (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the archived letter (that is also linked as a source) if anyone wants to double check, but I couldn't find his name there. Neither by going through the list one by one, nor using crtl+F.

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00aug29b1_from_1977.htm

~~~ Patlut (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Patlut I've read somewhere (reddit so don't take my words for it) that Foucault refused to sign it Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the case, his mention should be removed. Even RS get it wrong sometimes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. Curious how he signed the open letter mentioned in the lede, but not the one sent to Le Monde. History is bizarre. Carlp941 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT says:

There are a number of ways in which the age of consent laws that were in place in France in 1977 could be seen as oppressive. Some of the arguments made by those who signed the petition and others who opposed these laws included:

• These laws criminalized sexual activity between people of different ages, even if both parties were willing and consenting. This could lead to people being punished for engaging in perfectly harmless and consensual activity.

These laws were often used to unfairly target and punish people who were perceived as being different or outside the mainstream, such as LGBTQ+ individuals.

• These laws were seen as being paternalistic and lacking in respect for individual autonomy and the right to make one's own decisions about one's own body and relationships.
• These laws were often enforced in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner, with people from marginalized groups being more likely to be targeted and punished.

Overall, the petition and the broader movement it was part of sought to challenge and dismantle these laws as a way of promoting greater freedom and autonomy for individuals in matters of sexuality and personal relationships. 115.166.3.9 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Among those freedoms was the freedom to have sex with children.

That is no secret.

. Therefore they are not believed. They are thought to be incapable of sexuality and they are not thought to be capable of speaking about it. But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley Knoterification (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this a correct reading according to the sources?

According to this article[1] the petition's intention was to resolve the double standards between homosexuals and heterosexuals (that's why the wikipedia page mentions people being accused of pedophilia as being kept in jail for years based on accusations alone).

There's an interview[2] in which they basically just jabber on about how complex an issue it is. It ends with: "In any case, if one listens to what a child says and if he says 'I didn't mind,' that doesn't have the legal value of 'I consent.' But I'm also very mistrustful of that formal recognition of consent on the part of a minor, because I know it will never be obtained and is meaningless in any case."

So that's someone having signed the petition saying that children can't really legally consent.

According to this article [3] in France, "In the 19th century, the age at which children were considered sexual minors was 11; later, it was raised to 13, and since 1945, it has been 15."

The Wikipedia page, under the heading 'Legacy" states "In 1982, the French government removed its clauses regarding sodomy and similar acts "against nature" from the 1945 ordinance."

That seemed to have been why the petitioning didn't continue, because the double standard against homosexual relations was seen to be resolved... which seems to be what the whole thing was about - removing the double standards on gay people and their having sexual relations. But maybe there's also some what of an anarchist undercurrent to the whole thing. 115.166.3.9 (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In that same interview Foucault says the following:

. "Therefore they are not believed. They are thought to be incapable of sexuality and they are not thought to be capable of speaking about it. But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given. And to assume that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable."

He is saying that children sometime do consent having sex with adults. That was his position.

Pedophilia was promoted in Libération

https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/mai-68/20180406.OBS4756/l-apologie-de-la-pedophilie-face-noire-de-mai-68.html Knoterification (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Purpose?

The purpose of this petition is unclear. While we should establish that this is not the left trying to support pedophiles (one can misconstrue the petition quite easily), it is also important to note the objective of the signatories. While it would be illogical to say they were legit pedophiles trying to get a freedom ticket, we must consider the true motivations of the signatories. First, it is apparent that they were for the liberation of homosexuality, as stated by the petition's text. Furthermore, this appears to be a protest against the inequity of hetero/homosexual relationships when it comes to the age of consent in France, stating that if a child can be held liable for crimes, they should also be able to consent to sexual acts with adults. As a person on the left, I do not endorse pedophilia, and nobody on the left would/should enable child molesters to act out their atrocious fantasies; while there were fringe movements, nobody on the left of their respective counties caught on (thank goodness).

Anyways, it appears that the objective of the creator was to advance gay rights, not to enable pedophiles. If anything, the whole "legalizing sex with kids" part was just nonsense to turn heads towards their cause, and not to actually liberate pedophilia. As stated by the above topic, it appears that equalizing age of consent laws for hetero/homosexual relationships was the goal, with the other elements being an attention-getter.

Again, the left does not endorse pedophiles. We are not part of some pedo-satanic cult of intellectuals plotting the end of the world or something. In conclusion, the objective was not pedophile liberation, but rather the advancement of gay rights in France.

TL;DR please list the purpose of the petition in clear words on the page; we do not need people thinking this was some pro-pedophile campaign by creeps of a specific ideology. That said, the addition of the motivations of the signatories would be beneficial to the understanding of this petition. It is evident that the signatories did not support pedophiles and used that element as a method of getting attention to their cause (aka gay liberation), and not enabling pedophiles. Basically, they used the "no age of consent laws" as a point of turn heads, not actually liberate pedophiles. Western Progressivist (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"As a person on the left, I do not endorse pedophilia, and nobody on the left would/should enable child molesters to act out their atrocious fantasies; while there were fringe movements, nobody on the left of their respective counties caught on (thank goodness)."

One of those fringe movements was headed by French post-modernist intellectuals such as Michel Foucault who believed that the idea that having sex with children was morally wrong was a bourgeois dogma like any other.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley Knoterification (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Want to read a left wing critique of that liberatarian movement?

https://agauche.org/2018/06/15/mai-1968-et-la-promotion-liberale-libertaire-de-la-pedophilie/ Knoterification (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Mismatch between French and English entries

I think this page is not up to the standard of quality and context the French wikipedia page provides and lacks nuance and key historical context that situates the petition with the Versailles case. The wiki editors for the English page have a clear agenda to obfuscate and mystify the very complex workings of this key watershed moment in French history and must do better with their sources. The French Wikipedia page is miles better when discussing this topic providing relevant context and quotes regarding this.

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_de_Versailles https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9titions_en_France_concernant_la_majorit%C3%A9_sexuelle 2A00:23C7:A8AF:B101:2644:B991:D2EC:F606 (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Be careful.

1. Don't make such accusations against other editors. Always assume good faith.
2. Coverage here will inevitably be somewhat different as this article will tend to use more English language sources and reflect the thinking about this topic found in English language cultures and English language laws. Do not try to make the articles exact mirror images of each other.
3. It is perfectly fine to use French (and other) language sources, as long as you're willing to translate the content for use here.
4. It is fine to merge content from the French article here but don't delete English language sources in an attempt to slant this article. Keep both perspectives. That will likely change the slant of this article, and that is also fine.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the IP. English language sources are getting this wrong and are mixing up basic facts—for example, confusing the two different petitions published in Le Monde in 1977. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That is entirely possible, so any editor who knows better and can back their changes with RS should be bold and make the change. I fully agree with your last comment below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith. We have no motivation to slander philosophers, and this page mostly sticks to their own words and relevant context. It may be upsetting, but multiple intellectuals clearly advocated for the legalization of pedophilia. We have been careful to not slander anyone.

My french is poor, but a cursory read of the French articles leave a ton to be desired. There are lengthy, page long quotes that have nothing to do with the petition. There are portions of the article that are in direct conflict with the sources cited, and there are few secondary sources. I would go as far to say that the French article does what you accuse us of doing, it uses long quotes and relies heavily on primary sources to deflect from the reality of the events and push an agenda. That reality is plainly obvious: that many French intellectuals advocated for lowering the age of consent which would legalize acts commonly described as pedophilia. Some were motivated to because they wished to equalize laws governing sex acts between homosexuals, some were motivated because they wanted to legalize pedophilia. If there is additional context you wish to add, please do, but the French article is significantly worse than the English version, and I would contest edits that moves us closer to it. Carlp941 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Some were motivated to because they wished to equalize laws governing sex acts between homosexuals, some were motivated because they wanted to legalize pedophilia." Hence I say the lack of nuance and clarity in this Wikipedia article, the lack of historical context surrounding the petition itself as well as a source directly linking to the petition is pretty bad, I'm not sure how you can say that the English wiki is up to standard when it's missing important information, such as the Vesailles Affair in 1977, the Matzneff scandal. The English Wikipedia page neglects to mention that many whom signed the petition (people like Foucault) who was discriminated as a gay man wanted to amend the constitution to equalise rights between homosexuals and straight people, in France. Though, the English wiki fails to mention without Gabrielle Russer, Gabriel Matzneff, the prior sexual assault cases and Matzneff's role in drafting the originally proposed petition.

Also Foucault did not sign the original 1977 petition in Le Monde, (as the wikipedia wrongly suggests) he did however sign the open letter in May 23rd 1977 which has called for the revision of the penal code, the English wiki fails to make a distinction in the opening paragraph, which describes a different article entirely, outside of the original petition that was issued. This does not get addressed until Publication of open letters. Furthermore, the May 1977 open letter which is seperate from the original petition does not advocate for the 'decriminalisation' of pedophilia as falsely stated. Even if the French wikipedia supposedly 'breaks' Wikipedia's rules on balance (by actually properly citing French sources, and giving correct context), I can't assume good faith, when the editor of this page have failed to do basic research outside of the things they have chosen to cite.

I'd also point to another example: In the Legacy, the editors cite "The Black Masses of Michel Foucault, the Bullshit of Guy Sorman", merely talking about the 1945 ordinance. Both the source contradicts Foucault's signature, as it outright states: "A petition written by Gabriel Matzneff and published in 1977 is mentioned, but it’s one that Foucault didn’t sign." Le Monde further supports this as his name is not on the list of others who did sign the petition. Another archived version of the paper can be found on this blog. This is both humiliating and inconsistent, to have a source listed both refute the claim Foucault was a signatory, and another to imply he was when sources suggest otherwise. And before you suggest otherwise, using purely English sources, it's clear places like the Guardian did failed to differentiate between the original petition and the 1977 ordinance, instead conflating the two. It is clear that this was either left intentionally, or was lost in translation, yet Wikipedia editors did not cross-examine their sources with Francophone sources or the original text. I fail to see how that is good faith, when a simple distinction can't be made without baseless conflation between those who did sign the Matzneff petition and those who signed the 1977 open letter. As a researcher in French history I am somewhat appalled by the lack of nuance, clarity and intellectual rigor, and by extention honesty of this wikipedia page. I did not make any edits of this myself, as if I did, all my hard work correcting this travesty of a page would have been moot. Do better, and maybe read your sources. 2A00:23C7:A8AF:B101:9D95:3687:8030:BDD2 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey IP, Wikipedia is edited by volunteer editors including yourself. So please, when you believe an article needs improvement, I highly encourage that you be bold in making the changes—that's the only way wikis like this improve!

Your comment seems to suggest that we have a single editor responsible for the content of the page (or that there exists some sort of peer review process), but that's not the case—and falsehoods or mistakes oftentimes can make their way into articles unchecked unless we correct these errors. So if you've found something in the article is not verified by the cited source or goes against what other reliable sources are saying, then I would strongly encourage you to make those changes yourself. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. Instead of complaining, fix it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I would note that most of the language used in this article has been sitting unchanged since around 2015 (that is until my edits today). There's no cabal of editors wanting to keep a certain version, it's just something one guy wrote and it's perfectly fine to change it. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! They are mostly pretty good and I appreciate them, I have some minor quibbles on some of the wording - but I'll lay those out in detail later. Thank you for being constructive! Carlp941 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some good edits to make. Now please get off your soapbox and make them! Carlp941 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI on the term "statutory rape"

I've removed this phrase from the article recently as there has not been "statutory rape" clause in France until 2021.

In France, it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor under the age of 15. But it is not automatically considered rape, unlike in countries with statutory rape laws where people who are underage are considered incapable of giving consent. (The New York Times)

See, for example, the above article from January 2020. I believe this is probably the result of a poor translation (the whole article seems to be the result of multiple poor translations). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Guérin

Did Guérin sign the 1979 petition? None of the sources for that section mention his name at all as far as I can tell. Zerothenerd (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Vanjagenije, who made the addition here. I'm confused as well, this is not supported by the source and in the case of Catherine Millet, is possibly an extreme BLP violation. The only people mentioned in the Express article are Pascal Bruckner, Georges Moustaki, and Christiane Rochefort. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zerothenerd and Freedom4U: Hi! It seams that I translated form French Wikipedia without citing the source. Anyway, the original Le Monde article is here. Unfortunately, I can't see the whole article without subscribing, but Guérin's name is visible. The whole list of names can also be fount here. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)